To be fair, it's pretty easy to add behaviour to a Makefile.PL. It's just a Perl script. People keep saying that there are all sorts of different make(1) programs out there and different command line syntax and whatnot, but in all the stuff I read about Perl and all the places I teach and all the people I work for, this has never been an issue.

Personally, I don't find the features you list compelling. I can build HTML docs with pod2html if I want them, I already have a command line shortcut for coverage testing, my source control system does the diffs for me, and so on. Those "features" seem more like typing conveniences than true features or things that Module::Build does better. None of those things were bothersome to me before, and they aren't things people are telling me they want. A lot of those features sound like niceties for developers, whereas users really don't care.

You've already discounted any of those objections because you call Module::Build a "proper build system", and saying that "pretending that MakeMaker can keep up isn't realistic". That goes against the experience of a lot of people.

I haven't really seen specific complaints about MakeMaker from the people advocating Module::Build. I see a lot of bluster about how they hate MakeMaker and other vague ramblings about various problems. If that was true, I think it would be more apparent to a lot of module developers. You talk about some discussions in the TPF grant committee, but you don't say anything specific about what those complaints are.

If Module::Build is a good system, then let it stand on its merits. Arguments against MakeMaker aren't arguments for Module::Build. I persoanlly have yet to see, in any discussion here or elsewhere, anything that would make me want to use Module::Build. You say that its easier, but I didn't think thihngs were hard before.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't use Module::Build, but I also don't think a small group should try to force it on everyone else.